"full, conscious and active participation"

[Lapey]

I have had priests and others tell me it is actually “doing” a ministry in mass, i.e. EMHC, lector, sacristan, usher, I think you get the picture, which shows full & active participation. This came up when I talked to one priest about adjusting the number of EMsHC to the need for the mass, if we only need two EMsHC then why have six? In his defense, he was ordained before Vat II and this may have been the message way back when. This is not a priest bashing thread; he is a good priest, 78 years old and still serving the Church of Christ.

I believe this is one of the most miss-used phrases from the liturgy documents.

In my study of Sacred Liturgy in formation, the action of being a member of the congregation and taking part in that role is full, conscious and active participation.
What does this statement mean to you?

What are other’s thoughts on this subject?

 

[Catholic90]

We had a priest who used to address this in his homilies quite often. He explained it meant saying the responses, singing, standing, being present. If you wanted to volunteer for things, great! But if you could not, at least participate in the responses. He was known to have the congregation repeat a response if it was muttered, since he said clearly not everyone was awake and paying attention! He was great! When he was our priest, the church was packed standing room only for every mass all the time.

 

[OraLabora]

I have had priests and others tell me it is actually “doing” a ministry in mass, i.e. EMHC, lector, sacristan, usher, I think you get the picture, which shows full & active participation. This came up when I talked to one priest about adjusting the number of EMsHC to the need for the mass, if we only need two EMsHC then why have six? In his defense, he was ordained before Vat II and this may have been the message way back when. This is not a priest bashing thread; he is a good priest, 78 years old and still serving the Church of Christ.

I believe this is one of the most miss-used phrases from the liturgy documents.

In my study of Sacred Liturgy in formation, the action of being a member of the congregation and taking part in that role is full, conscious and active participation.
What does this statement mean to you?

What are other’s thoughts on this subject?

I think we are all called to serve the Church in some way or another. However many of those ministries take place outside the Mass (ministries to the poor for instance, parish wardens, etc.). I think it goes with one’s calling. For some it’s serving at Mass, for others in the many needs of the Church outside Mass. For those who serve outside Mass, of course we should participate at Mass with all our heart and soul, as part of the faithful in the nave.

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree. I think it is a most unfortunate interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium as it implies that the vast majority of the laity who are not performing one of these tasks are thereby incapable of full and active participation in the liturgy.

It would be impossible and chaotic to try to give ever single person some specific ministry in the Mass. It’s just not designed that way.

 

[Brendan]

Pope Benedict had a full chapter devoted to that subject in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

In it, +Benedict describes the two main actia (actions) of the Mass, the Word proclaimed and the Eucharist.

One participated fully, conscientiously, and actively when one listens fully to the readings, Gospel and homily, and in the Eucharist when they give themselves as a sacrifice along with the Sacrifice offered by the priest.

None of that involves having some sort of ministry at Mass. Rather they are interior actions.

 

[Brendan]

Here is a bit on the subject from Pope John Paul II

Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

Ad limina address to the US Bishops, 1998

 

[Newbie2]

I have had priests and others tell me it is actually “doing” a ministry in mass, i.e. EMHC, lector, sacristan, usher, I think you get the picture, which shows full & active participation. This came up when I talked to one priest about adjusting the number of EMsHC to the need for the mass, if we only need two EMsHC then why have six? In his defense, he was ordained before Vat II and this may have been the message way back when. This is not a priest bashing thread; he is a good priest, 78 years old and still serving the Church of Christ.

I believe this is one of the most miss-used phrases from the liturgy documents.

In my study of Sacred Liturgy in formation, the action of being a member of the congregation and taking part in that role is full, conscious and active participation.
What does this statement mean to you?

What are other’s thoughts on this subject?

At my SIL’s former parish, the priest would remind everyone as mass was beginning that we are called to full and active participation, meaning that we are not just there to get some free grace and sit on our backsides. Participate means to sing, pray, etc actively.

 

[Brendan]

At my SIL’s former parish, the priest would remind everyone as mass was beginning that we are called to full and active participation, meaning that we are not just there to get some free grace and sit on our backsides. Participate means to sing, pray, etc actively.

That is true, but if you look at the quote from Pope John Paul II, both of those can be done silently.

So we CAN sit on our backsides, we just have to listen to the readings, the hymns and offer our prayers to God

 

[ProVobis]

That is true, but if you look at the quote from Pope John Paul II, both of those can be done silently.

So we CAN sit on our backsides, we just have to listen to the readings, the hymns and offer our prayers to God

I agree. The actual Latin used, I believe, is actuosa participatio, and I also believe it was earlier used by Pope Pius X, who noticed that people had been praying rosaries and the like other than participating in the actual Mass. Some translators interpreted this to mean “active participation” but, after realizing who actually coined the phrase, one must definitely leave open the probability that silence or following in handmissals are perfectly acceptable.

 

[ProVobis]

But if you could not, at least participate in the responses.

So if I were to attend a German or Vietnamese Mass, then I couldn’t possibly participate in that Mass? I’m not sure I’d agree there.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

We had a priest who used to address this in his homilies quite often. He explained it meant saying the responses, singing, standing, being present. If you wanted to volunteer for things, great! But if you could not, at least participate in the responses. He was known to have the congregation repeat a response if it was muttered, since he said clearly not everyone was awake and paying attention! He was great! When he was our priest, the church was packed standing room only for every mass all the time.

Nonsense! What does this say about Catholics attending who do not know the vernacular being spoken? For example, if I go to Mexico for holidays, not knowing Spanish, yet still having to fulfill my obligation to assist at Mass, how can I be told I am not “actively participating” in Mass because I’m not giving the responses, singing, etc?

If this is the case, we better go back to using Latin exclusively so that people will be able to know all the responses and propers in Latin so they can say/sing them regardless of the vernacular. At least then I could go to any country with my Latin/English hand missal and, aside from the homily, actively participate. You know, in this every changing multicultural world we live in with all these personal parishes, each having its own languages, this is probably the best route to go.

BTW: The fact that a church is “packed full all the time” really means very little in and of itself. It could be packed full all the time with proud heretics and openly dissenting catholics receiving communion sacrilegiously for all anyone knows.

Pope Benedict had a full chapter devoted to that subject in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

In it, +Benedict describes the two main actia (actions) of the Mass, the Word proclaimed and the Eucharist.

One participated fully, conscientiously, and actively when one listens fully to the readings, Gospel and homily, and in the Eucharist when they give themselves as a sacrifice along with the Sacrifice offered by the priest.

None of that involves having some sort of ministry at Mass. Rather they are interior actions.

Exactly! Personally, ever since I started attending the EF Mass almost exclusively, I have never fully and actively participated so much in Mass before.

 

[YoungTradCath]

IMO:

1. Make the responses you’re supposed to make, if you can.
2. Assume the postures you’re supposed to assume, if you can.
3. Pray, regardless of the language.

That’s it. The attitude of having to be one of the nineteen EMHCs or thirty greeters to be “fully” participating is a worn-out remnant of the post-Vatican II hypefest and is insulting to anyone who does not. Do we go to mass for the sake of participating just to participate? I hope not, because I could just as easily go play laser tag on Sunday mornings if “participating” in something is all that matters, and it’s distressing when someone thinks so. It’s always funny when you go to a parish that has someone to light candles, someone else to turn on the lights, someone else to retrieve the incense, someone else to pour wine in each of the chalices but one, someone else to retrieve the hosts, someone else to say “hullo thar” to everyone, someone else to put the cloths on the altar, someone else to “announce” the start of mass, someone else to assist the clerics in vesting if needed, someone else to perform each insignificant, menial task “just because we can”… well, you get the idea.

My point is that oftentimes, it seems the very act of participating in something overshadows every single real reason why we attend mass in the first place, and church staffs perpetuate the attitude.

 

[Anna_Claire]

The Vatican II reform taught us that the Sacred Liturgy is suppose to be the action of the whole Body of Christ, not just something the priest does for us, or a private devotion or a mass for silent spectators.
“Full, conscious active participation” is a very important goal in the CSL and other liturgy documents. It comes up often and should not be ignored. the CSL calls FCAP “…our right and duty…” because of our Baptism.
The phrase is about sharing in words we pray, words we hear,song, gestures and other actions. Its about doing our part in whatever function is ours…priest, lector, Eucharistic Minister, altar server or as part of the assembly. Its about truly believing in Christ’s presence, not just in the Sacrament, but in the gathered assembly, the priest, in the reading of The Word of God.
FCAP is also about sharing in communion, praying the Words of the Faithful, offering the sacrifice with the priest as he prays the Eucharistic Prayer. It’s also about offering ourselves. FCAP is about the attitude we bring with us to mass and leave with. Its also about observing the silent reflection that is built into the liturgy, after each reading, after the homily…
Outward actions, as important as they are, mean little if our interior disposition,spiritual,moral and intellectual are not favorable. We have to be all and both to achieve FCAP and we have to do it together, not as individuals praying alone.

 

[John_Lilburne]

An official church document, approved by Pope Paul VI on 22 October 1973, is the Directory for Masses with Children. The full document is at adoremus.org/DMC-73.html .

It has:
"Offices and Ministries in the Celebration

1. The principles of active and conscious participation are in a sense even more significant for Masses celebrated with children. Every effort should therefore be made to increase this participation and to make it more intense. For this reason as many children as possible should have special parts in the celebration: for example,; preparing the place and the altar (see no. 29), acting as cantor (see no. 24), singing in a choir, playing musical instruments (see no. 32), proclaiming the readings (see nos. 24 and 47), responding during the homily (see no. 48), reciting the intentions of the general intercessions, bringing the gifts to the altar, and performing similar activities in accord with the usage of various peoples (see no. 34)."

I don’t think anyone is saying that participation in liturgical ministries is the only thing in active participation. But surely it is a part of it.

From the 1963 Sacrosanctum Concilium (at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html ):
"14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else;"

Since 1963 part of the changes have been lay ministries, such as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and instituted acolytes.

 

[Brendan]

FCAP is also about sharing in communion, praying the Words of the Faithful, offering the sacrifice with the priest as he prays the Eucharistic Prayer. It’s also about offering ourselves. one.

One thing to be careful of. The sacrifice of the ministerial priest is distinct from the sacrifce we offer as members of the common priesthood.

The priest, in persona Christi, is Christ the Son offering Himself to the Father.

Our sacrifice is that of ourselves. So when the priest, acting the Christ the High Priest, offers his sacrice, we offer what we can, our full selves.

The priest offers his sacrifice and we offer ours, they are seperate but we do them at the same time. The way you phrased your statement could be construed as we offering the same sacrifice as the priest does along with him. That cannot be the case.

That is one of the reasons why the Mass of Vatican II had the priest saying “Oráte, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrifícium acceptábile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipoténtem.”

"“Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”

Fortunately, the English translation caught up with what the rest of the world has been saying since the Council and now corresponds with our theology of the Mass more clearly.

I would suggest that anyone interested in what is meant my “full, conscience, active, participation” means to read Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

After all, he was there, so he knows better than us

 

[Corki]

Pope Benedict had a full chapter devoted to that subject in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

In it, +Benedict describes the two main actia (actions) of the Mass, the Word proclaimed and the Eucharist.

One participated fully, conscientiously, and actively when one listens fully to the readings, Gospel and homily, and in the Eucharist when they give themselves as a sacrifice along with the Sacrifice offered by the priest.
None of that involves having some sort of ministry at Mass. Rather they are interior actions.

The bolded:

One does not have to say a single word, sing a single note or make a single gesture to participate fully, consciously and actively in the Liturgy. Active listening and affirmative joining of our prayers with the priest’s are all that is necessary. All of the rest is great and can add a lot to an individual’s experience of the Mass but is not essential.

 

[Anna_Claire]

Brendan…
Why do we have to be “careful”? We are not trying to do what the priest does. He is important…we cant do without him…but we are just as important to the liturgy. He cant do without us. We are not talking about the TLM…that’s a whole different theology.

To Corki
*
“One does not have to say a single word, sing a single note or make a single gesture to participate fully, consciously and actively in the Liturgy. Active listening and affirmative joining of our prayers with the priest’s are all that is necessary. All of the rest is great and can add a lot to an individual’s experience of the Mass but is not essential.”
*

WRONG!!!

 

[Brendan]

Brendan…
Why do we have to be “careful”? We are not trying to do what the priest does.

Your statement had a large amount of ambiquity, it implied that we offer the same sacrifice in conjunction with the priest, that is not the theology of the Mass (OF or EF). I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that.

He is important…we cant do without him…but we are just as important to the liturgy. He cant do without us. We are not talking about the TLM…that’s a whole different theolog

The theology of the priest’s role at Mass is the same as it has ever been. He is Christ, the High Priest, offering Himself to the Father.

We are important, but not vital. Mass can be said without a single member of the faithful. It is not ideal and is discouraged, but it happens.

We cannot have a Mass without a priest. So I cannot see how you can define us as 'just as important"

“One does not have to say a single word, sing a single note or make a single gesture to participate fully, consciously and actively in the Liturgy. Active listening and affirmative joining of our prayers with the priest’s are all that is necessary. All of the rest is great and can add a lot to an individual’s experience of the Mass but is not essential.”
*

WRONG!!!

I will compare that to the words of Pope John Paul II

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural

 

[YoungTradCath]

Brendan…
Why do we have to be “careful”? We are not trying to do what the priest does. He is important…we cant do without him…but we are just as important to the liturgy. He cant do without us. We are not talking about the TLM…that’s a whole different theology.

To Corki
*
“One does not have to say a single word, sing a single note or make a single gesture to participate fully, consciously and actively in the Liturgy. Active listening and affirmative joining of our prayers with the priest’s are all that is necessary. All of the rest is great and can add a lot to an individual’s experience of the Mass but is not essential.”
*

WRONG!!!

To be technical, yes, a mass may be done without a congregation. In fact, it was actually harder when the TLM was the only mass than it is now. Yes, that’s right, a priest may now celebrate mass by himself just because he wants to. The TLM is not a “whole different theology.” That, madam, is wrong. The mass is a sacrifice and a memorial in either Form.

Would you please illustrate how Corki is wrong rather than by simply capitalizing the word in such a sophomoric manner? I’m glad you feel more “participatory” than other people simply because you get to be a [sic] “Eucharistic minister,” but that is where we clash.

 

[Brendan]

We are not talking about the TLM…that’s a whole different theology.

I would be very interested to read any Church documents that describe this change in theology.

Do you have any references?

Because Pope Benedict made the opposite claim, in fact going so far as stating that the theology of the Mass was the same, not only in the Roman Rite, but amongst the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.